410 F. App'x 918
6th Cir.2011Background
- Brookins was indicted January 3, 2005 for possession with intent to distribute cocaine, crack, and marijuana; he pled guilty under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement.
- Plea agreement provided sentence at the low end of the Guideline range, but not below mandatory minimum, and a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility; government could consider a substantial-assistance departure.
- Brookins’s base offense level was 32, raised to 37 as a career offender; after a 3-level acceptance reduction, total offense level was 34; criminal history category VI
- Sentencing on August 1, 2005 awarded 240 months on Counts 1 and 2 and 120 months on Count 3, concurrent, after a substantial-assistance motion.
- Amendment 706 (cocaine base, retroactive) reduced base level for many offenses; MOR showed Brookins’s base would drop but career-offender status kept him at a high level, maintaining 262–327 month range; the district court denied further reduction under §3582(c)(2).
- Dillon v. United States and Washington v. United States later framed §3582(c)(2) relief as a narrow, non-plenary adjustment rather than a full resentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brookins is eligible for a crack-sentence reduction under §3582(c)(2). | Brookins argues Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea does not preclude reduction, and Amendment 706 should reduce his sentence. | Brookins contends the reduction is barred by mandatory minimum and career-offender status, and that Peveler does not foreclose a potential reduction. | No; Brookins not eligible due to mandatory minimum and career-offender status. |
| Whether career-offender status bars §3582(c)(2) relief despite Amendment 706. | Brookins relies on Amendment 706 to obtain a two-level base-offense reduction. | Career-offender status continues to disqualify him from §3582(c)(2) relief. | Yes; career offender status disqualifies §3582(c)(2) relief, despite Amendment 706. |
| Whether Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea precludes §3582(c)(2) resentencing under Peveler. | Nothing in Rule 11(c)(1)(C) or the plea agreement precludes a §3582(c)(2) reduction. | Rule 11(c)(1)(C) generally binds the sentence and Peveler forecloses modification. | Yes; Peveler forecloses such a reduction under these circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Peveler v. United States, 359 F.3d 369 (6th Cir. 2004) (Rule 11(c)(1)(C) typically precludes §3582(c)(2) relief unless serious injustice)
- United States v. Johnson, 564 F.3d 419 (6th Cir. 2009) (mandatory minimum prevents crack-sentence reductions)
- United States v. Payton, 617 F.3d 911 (6th Cir. 2010) (career-offender status bars Amendment 706-based reductions)
- United States v. Bridgewater, 606 F.3d 258 (6th Cir. 2010) (same on career offender and Amendment 706)
- United States v. Perdue, 572 F.3d 288 (6th Cir. 2009) (limits §3582(c)(2) relief to lowered sentencing ranges)
- United States v. Washington, 584 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2009) (§3582(c)(2) not a full resentencing; narrow adjustment per Dillon)